Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:12, 19 February 2007

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Stop archiving! in re RunedChozo

ref: I'm being harassed by "The Epopt"
ref: RunedChozo Blocked

I returned less than 24 hours after posting a comment, see above (permlink), and the discussion has already been archived. That's a problem. I consider myself fairly active and I come to Misplaced Pages at least once a day, so to have a discussion I started, archived before I got a chance to come back and see what people said in response to my complaint is completely unacceptable.

Even worse, I didn't get a response to my complaint. Please consider this my opening a complaint on this board. I'd like a response from the people involved in the incident, and a comment on what will happen.

I don't know much about RunedChozo's past behavoir. But, after reading everything on this page I am under the impression, and correct me if I'm wrong, that most warnings and notices on user space can be removed, and that's effictively, the response that RunedChozo got here--except that while people here were SAYING that, there were also reverting his edits to his user page to keep warning there and protecting his userpage so that he couldn't edit it. Those are some pretty conflicting signals to send.

If in fact users are not allowed to take warnings off there user spaces, then all administrators had to do, was make that clear to RunedChozo here. They didn't need to go and revert edits on his userspace--they could have waited for him to and if he didn't move from there, and they didn't need to protect his userspace. These actions were hostile and provoctive, especially since that wasn't the information he was being given here. Administrators knew that there was something going on here, they came from this incident report and went to his userpage and took action, and did so without leaving clarifiying messages as to policy. There were a lot of messages about the user, and the user's behavoir on several other issues, but nothing about what the user actually brought up.

This user's user page and discussion page are still blocked, and the sockpuppet warning the user was trying to get removed is still on the userpage. These discussions have been archived riduclously quickly and I haven't gotten a response to any of my concerns. I'd like to know exactly what the policy is about the removal of warnings on userpages and I'd like a response about the action take on the userpage that was provocative and contradictory to the messages that the user was getting here. I'd also like to know what administrators plan to do about the locked status of the userpages and the sockpuppet warning on the userpage, and why all of these discussions have been archived so quickly.

Please do NOT prematurely archive this discussion. As I stated at the beginning, consider this comment my filing an incident report in response to what I consider the overall gross mishandling of this situation and I'd like a reasonable opportunity to respond. Everyone else, please don't turn this into another fight over whether or not RunedChozo is or is not a ______. Thank you. Miss Mondegreen 03:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that archiving is done automatically by a bot when no discussion has taken place for 24 hours, correct? Issues on this board aren't meant to drag out for weeks and weeks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The last two "archives" done on sections concerning RunedChozo were done by editors, not bots. --Onorem 03:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't catch that because only two bot-archived incidents were linked up at the top. But my below point still stands on solid ground :) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and this is not the place for a formal "incident report". As you can see if you'll read the header, this is not the Misplaced Pages complaints department and this page is not part of our Dispute Resolution process. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I linked to RunedChozo's initial complaint, the discussion on whether or not to ban him, and, in my first paragraph I linked to my own discussion that was still on this page, but that had been closed by administrators. (There's an in page link and a permanent link there, because I knew it would soon be archived). The discussion on whether or not to ban RunedChozo, as well as my own discussion were both archived early by administrators. My comment was created because I didn't get to comment on the ban, and my comment was closed to discussion not 24 hours after I'd posted it, without giving me an opportunity to comment again. It also had degenerated into basic squabbling and finger pointing and was ridiculously off-topic.

The reason I posted again here was two-fold. One was that this whole long thing has stemmed from RunedChozo's first incident report here. I was not commenting on that--I did not really get an opportunity to because the discussion had moved onto his ban, and that discussion was closed rapidly. But I and others still had concerns that we wanted to express there and so we opened up new comments here. We would never have had to do this and we wouldn't be having an issue now of where do I post if administrators hadn't terminated discussions far too early.

The other reason that I posted here is that I'm not the only person involved in, or concerned with this, and I knew that the people who were, were watching this page and the previous discussions. Some of them also posted their own comments in their own sections after something earlier got terminiated prematurely and they didn't get to comment, or reply to a comment. If administrators strongly believe that halfway through an issue it should be moved to a different forum, that's fine; tell me where post and I will. And I'll provide a link here to let the people involved in and following this issue know where it is being taken up. I also want to thank everyone who did post here for not turning this into another fight. I got to come here and read nice succint opinions and get new informations and know where everyone stood and it was really refreshing. Thanks. Miss Mondegreen 22:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I reread the information you directed me to and I'm really confused where I should go. I don't have an issue with content that doesn't require administrative assitance, I require administrative assitance. And I don't really need dispute resolution either. I don't need an Rfc, and I don't need mediation, particularly as the people involved are on the arbitration commitee.

There was an incident, and just because it involves administrators doesn't mean that they themselves can't fix it. First, MY discussion was archived prematurely, and second, no where on here does it say that I have to be directly involved in something to report it. I saw an administrator insult someone and then add a banner to his userpage after he came here to request that administrators let him not have the banner, when apparantly policy is that the banner shouldn't be forced, and I saw a lot of other abysmal behavoir, and I can see a person with an indef block and a locked page so they can't say that they want to come back, and the banner still forced up there, and I want to report this. Please don't tell me to go somewhere to report "an issue with content that doesn't require administrative assistance" or to get dispute resolution. I can't have a dispute if no administrator will answer me, and I'm not having a dispute--I want to report an incident and get someone to do something about it. That is what this board is for. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   23:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The actual count of permablocked users is three...

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but, I am concerned that neither RunedChozo nor Miss Mondegreen have received direct answers. RunedChozo did not handle the situation well, and perhaps this user has been disruptive in the past, however, I believe this user came here with a legitimate concern and was provoked into crossing the line. RunedChozo was perhaps not the best editor to try and make this point, but the question still has not been adequately answered. So, I will ask one more time: Must a user leave a Sockpuppet Master warning up after they have returned from their block? Yes or No?--DSRH | talk 16:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC) I am obviously not going to get a direct answer to my question so it is withdrawn. C'est la vie.--DSRH | talk 04:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I also share this view. I don't have an opinion on the block because that is for sysops to decide on, but the user did come with a complaint and I was hoping that it would have been looked into first. If he had spammed, then he would be stupid to come here with a report which could well incriminate himself. If he had not, then this was the correct place to come to. Unfortunately, due to his past behaviour, the discussion got nowhere - and now he has one more excuse to complain. x42bn6 Talk 16:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I supported the indef, having a sockpuppet notice forced on one's userpage like a brand is harassment, plain and simple, and should not be tolerated. - Merzbow 06:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

And when one of the same admins who did the branding is the one who made the indefblock, using the excuse that he'd managed to provoke the user into saying some bad things on their own user page?

The same admin who blocked PSPMario indefinitely has now locked and redirected his talk page to the user page, removing the unblock request in the process. How much more out-of-process adminpower abuse will there be in this case?

Nonsense. It is not improper to do such. The user is a blatant sockpuppet per both contributions and checkuser, and has been blocked accordingly and properly. --physicq (c) 01:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks cannot request unblocking (hence the word: indefinite). x42bn6 Talk 01:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they can request unblocking, but this specific block on the RunedChozo sock is non-negotiable. Indefinite, not permanent. --physicq (c) 01:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The fake block and fraudulent RFCU claiming PSPMario is a sockpuppet was never investigated, as is part of the entire thread here. But whatever, coverups are coverups, and this is obviously one going on. Admins aren't supposed to do what Mimsy Porpington did, and his claim of "trolling" in his summary for his reason to lock the page is a clear lie.

Then again, for pointing out when an admin abuses his power, there will likely be a block coming and they'll remove this comment to hide their abuse further. After all, that's what an abusive, incestuous, cronyist setup does.

Then again, you have resorted to nonsensical ranting instead of civil discussion. You have now frivolously accused us of conspiracy plots instead of admitting your own mistakes. But let's follow WP:DFTT, shall we? --physicq (c) 01:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's see: Three users are indefinitely blocked based on what is likely a falsified CU report, multiple threads here have been deliberately "closed" or "archived" early as documented by Miss Mondegreen above, and nobody is giving an answer, satisfactory or not, to questions raised. That you are so blind as to continually try to defend the obvious wrongdoings AND obvious coverup is amazing. If anyone's a "troll" here, it's you.

Talk all you like. But I'm more inclined to trust the CheckUser more than your words. --physicq (c) 02:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You're more inclined to trust a tool that lists uncertain results, and people who don't give a user-by-user result but instead just drop blanket condemnation? I don't. I think it's being abused, and that it was abusive in this case. I think you're showing your own hand, trying to protect someone for some ulterior motive; perhaps you think it'll make you more likely to get elected to arbitration committee or something if you can show how you can abuse people and stand up for those who abuse power. Perhaps you're just a troll. In either case, you're wrong.

I trust CheckUser more because those reaching a result on CheckUser are accountable and responsible for their judgments, unlike your words with no backbone. And conspiracy accusations are the telltale signs of users that are deservingly blocked, in case you didn't know. --physicq (c) 02:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"because those reaching a result on CheckUser are accountable and responsible for their judgments" - which is why users can't even see their own results, why results aren't listed name-by-name but all at once, and why there is no provision for appealing that it be doublechecked? You're setting up a real laugh riot here.

As for the "conspiracy accusations", I'm calling it like I see it. When something fishy is going on, something fishy is going on, so why don't you just go trout.

Problem is, the only thing fishy about this is your own rampant sockpuppetry. And I'm calling it as I see it. --physicq (c) 02:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You could always stop lying, but perhaps that's too hard for you to do. Multiple users, not just me, are seeing what's going on and can see the abuses clear as day. The fact that you're so deluded that you can't realize the abuses have been exposed is amazing, you must really be sucking down the kool-aid pretty hard.

Multiple? I see one, maybe two. Since when is two "multiple"? --physicq (c) 02:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Try reading all the threads that your abusive buddies tried to hide by "closing" and "archiving" far prematurely. And lay off the kool-aid, it's bad for your health.

The fact that you won't even address the concerns, but spend your time attacking me for bringing it up instead? You're showing how trollish you are. Shooting the messenger is an age-old tactic used by those who know they're in the wrong but are too drunk on power to care.

More farcical analogies. If I'm shooting the messenger, then User:Miss Mondegreen would have been blocked long ago. Problem is, I'm not just shooting the messenger; apparently, the messenger is also the recalcitrant disrupter. --physicq (c) 02:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems likely enough. I've given the IP a 48-hour block to stoke the fire some more. Mackensen (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, abusing your power is a really good way to show that you act in good faith. That makes TWO "admins" who abused their power now to try to silence any criticism of their behavior.

"Go trout"? JuJube 02:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's an expression we Brits sometimes use...

POV pushing

User Patchouli has unilaterally added POV edits to Iran/Islam related articles, and has reverted edits that removed the POV. He has used the pejorative term "Mullah-in-cheif" on the Assembly of Experts. Please see for the diff. Please see for the discussion. He has used the pejorative neologism "Mullahcracy" on the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Iran article (), the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists article (see history for reverts , and discussion ), and the History of fundamentalist Islam in Iran article (see history for reverts )

He has pushed POV in many articles. For example he added "It seems without question that the government of Iran is clerical fascist…" on the Clerical fascism article (see history for his reverts and edits , and the discussion ). And has only added blogs and editorials for sources of this.

Another example of his POV pushing is .

He added a section called Nicknames to the Iran article and wrote "One nickname of Iran is Land of Mullahs" . Like most of his POV edits he reverted editors attempts of removing his POV (you will see over three reverts on seperate occasions bases on the "Land of Mullahs" edit ).

When I complained about him making unilateral POV edits without discussion he merely replied "I am proud to have reverted your censorship" .

On the article he wrote of Khatami "He has received criticism inside and outside the Islamic Republic and it is not known how a mullah can bring freedom." (Please see the history for the extensive amount of unilateral edits ).

Many others have had problems with Patchouli's POV, what I have provided is only the tip of the iceberg. See , , , and . Agha Nader 02:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

• I have had a lot of trouble with Patchouli's edits just recently, so I'll be adding my findings as I go along. For one, see Using terrorist opposition group as a 'background information' link. Very misleading to link to a terrorist opposition group's claims as simply "some background." The Behnam 03:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Also, note this series of revert warring. Someone removed an undue weight POV issue about some magazine's opinion of Ali Khamenei (see for the relevant discussion). But Patchouli edit warred over this: , , , , , , , (this one uses a different POV source, Daniel Pipes),, , , , is the full sequence of events.
• Patchouli has explicitly stated his POV goal here when justifying his edits to another user. The Behnam 03:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• A POV re-introduction without any regard for the discussion on talk page . The Behnam 03:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Another POV gem , with edit warring , , . The Behnam 06:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• A 'Patchoulic' article , combining some editorials with OR to make negative assertions about those demonstrations. Perhaps a workable article, but Patchouli's style does not involve neutral writing and presentation. The Behnam 20:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Added a link to a strongly anti-Islam website , on the Religion of Peace article, which talks about the use of "religion of peace" to describe Islam. Adding a link to a very biased website in the article body, as its own section, is very POV. Afterwards added an external link in addition , so nothing was even slightly improved. I can't help but consider the possibility that it is misleading to say "Official Website of Religion of Peace" in the article where Islam is being discussed as a "religion of peace." In any case, the entire addition of that website to the mix was rather POV. The Behnam 10:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Further POV & OR together ... in general, Patchouli's edits at Mutaween page . The Behnam 10:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• I edited a page authored by Patchouli to remove POV . He soon reverted it, no reason given . The Behnam 02:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Patchouli is a very interesting person: His edits does hit one's raw nerves! I used to improve his edits on Iran related topics, but he has accused me of being a spy:

• "Agents of the Islamic Republic need to stop. Despite your salary, the campaign to disseminate falsehood is tough"
• And even on mediation pages that I wasn't participating in, he has somehow managed to get me involved as an example of an Iranian agent:

"Employees of the Islamic Republic who edit Misplaced Pages in their spare time have been dithering & can't decide on censoring Misplaced Pages."

But on the plus side, his edits has helped me to campaign for filtering Misplaced Pages in Iran :-) --Gerash77 03:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If more than one editor has tried to resolve the dispute, you have the makings of an RfC here. Jkelly 03:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the need for an RFC here. This is a consistent pattern of disruption and POV-pushing on Patchouli's part; I think administrative action should be taken against Patchouli so that we don't have to constantly hunt down and remove POV OR additions from what is a very large number of articles. The Behnam 06:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I am also one of the editors that has had to deal with Patchouli's sneaky POV pushing attempts. This is definitely a pattern of behaviour that he has on all articles related to the middle east. I am asking for your help to put a stop to User:Patchouli's abuses and his sabotage of wikipedia middle-east related articles. Please take the time to read the following links for information about his history of misconduct. I now feel that there's no reasonable chance to reach a resolution with him and therefore I'm seeking to present his case at the ArbCom or an RfC for user conduct. Please see User_talk:LittleDan#POV_pushing - Talk:Mohammad_Khatami#Patchouli_edits - User_talk:LittleDan#hello - User_talk:Alex9891#Khatami's reform protection Barnetj 17:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've already written about Patchouli many times before, and I don't want to repeat myself. He is not a good contributor and, in my opinion, should be banned. LittleDan 19:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I get frustrated whenever I see AN/I reports like this. One side, Patchouli, is vehemently ANTI-Iran, but then I see the other side, or a faction thereof, like Gerash77, who seems to have a long history of agitating against WIkipedia and actioning for it's censorship in Iran. I wind up feeling like if we deal with only the one issue brought to AN/I, but ignore the revealed OTHER problems, we're really not much better off, and possibly worse off. Can we address Gerash77's actions against what he calls a 'patchopedia', and brags of helping to censor it on his User Talk? ThuranX 03:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe at a different ANI. This particular ANI is about Patchouli's POV & OR editing, as well as unwillingness to compromise with a number of different editors. I don't think these different editors comprise some sort of anti-WP "faction;" the whole reason that Agha Nader started this and others, including myself, contributed is because Patchouli's disruptive edits are hindering the project. So I think it is unfair to characterize all of us as an anti-WP group just because one member of this group claims he convinced the IRI to filter WP. Anyway, this ANI hasn't really gone anywhere significant, and we are thinking about moving to an RFC or ArbCom. Most of the people who have had these unpleasant experiences with Patchouli consider ArbCom the best choice, including editors who haven't posted here (saving for ArbCom), so I intend to apply for ArbCom once I finally figure out the confusing process. The Behnam 08:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There isn't just Iranian who protest against "Patchouli". For example LittleDan neither Iranian nor Muslim. He's an admin of wikipedia. Please look at his comment on Patchouli's talk page few months ago:

"Hi there. Some people have told me that you've repeatedly violated the rules of NPOV in a number of articles that you have edited and created. I just want to tell you as clearly as I can that no article in Misplaced Pages is meant to convey a particular message or opinion, only the truth which has been agreed-upon by basically everyone. When you write an article that criticizes or advocates something or someone, this must be balanced by an opposing viewpoint in the same article. One user wrote on my talk page that you have created issues with the following articles:

*Mohammad Khatami's reforms (POV fork to bash a living person, just look at the introduction and how biased it's worded)

*Mohammad Khatami ( Please see the evidence of some of Patchouli's abuses at Talk:Mohammad_Khatami#Patchouli_edits, it includes links and refernces to his personal attacks on other users' talk pages calling them agents of foreign governments etc)

*Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists (adding Mullahcracy which is political epithet, jargon and neologism, as an alternative to the title of the article by citing political editorials! Also see Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Mullahcracy)

*Association for Defense of Azerbaijani Political Prisoners (POV fork)

*Khomeini's Islamic leadership (POV fork)

*Government-organized demonstration (POV fork)

If you continue to do things like this, I'll be forced to block you. Misplaced Pages is meant to be an encyclopedia, not an editorial page, and when you do this, it just makes more work for other editors who have to delete your articles and revert your changes. If you keep doing this, I'll have to block you from Misplaced Pages or bring this case to the arbitration commit. Another important thing is, Don't delete posts from your talk page. You should let others see what people have previously written to you, even if it isn't always positive. LittleDan 17:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Upon reviewing Misplaced Pages policy, this should actually be refered to the Arbitration committee. I will do that now. LittleDan 17:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)"

--Sa.vakilian 18:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well just have to say one thing about this user that he keep changing OBL lead with The Honored Sheikh Osama bin Muhammad bin Awad bin Laden, I do not think majority called him The Honored Sheikh and it should have any place in the lead of the article but changing it back again and again is not understandable to me. --- ALM 19:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should refer to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee.--Sa.vakilian 19:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, good grief. "POV-pushing" is surely too weak a term here, and the user has been around long enough to get a clue about encyclopedic editing if he's ever going to. I suggest there's no need to bother the arbcom. How about a ban for exhausting the community's patience? I know mine got exhausted just from reading the above, especially LittleDan's comments. Bishonen | talk 04:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes, we are aiming for a ban. If this can be done without having to go through ArbCom & all of its formalities, that is better. I think this ANI lays it all out very well, and this isn't even all of it. The more I look, the more I find. It is completely disruptive, and I'm tired of finding bad edits, undo/correct them, and then fight his successive blind reverts and attitude. The Behnam 05:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:JBAK white supremacist abusive message on talk page

User:JBAK has made some decent contributions including starting the page Bophuthatswana coup relating to white right-wing in South Africa. This page is presented fairly neutrally (although the style needs work). He/she also edits anonymously. Claims to be working with User:Williamdevino who was banned indefinitely for an abusive edit in December, but their style overlaps heavily, so it's highly likely that they are the same person. Related anonymous IP addresses made these abusive edits targeting User:RevJohn. User:JBAK most recently made a highly racist edit to their own talk page. Incidentally they also recently moved their user page to 8298182 in article space with the comment that they didn't want anyone to view it, then deleted it. What action can be taken? Zaian 09:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Not just everyday racism, but incitement to murder people of Sub-Saharan African descent.. Indef block recommended.Proabivouac 09:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the user indefinitely. That's a very shocking edit, and highly similar to the one that got the other editor you mentioned blocked indefinitely... This is weird though, because JBAK has a solid contribution history. Everyone else, please jump in and review... I think I'm going to bed soon. But I think this qualifies somewhat as a "death threat" and we shouldn't tolerate this kind of behavior under any circumstances anyway. Grandmasterka 09:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block, based on the severity of the comment, his editing through other accounts, and likely sockpuppetry (which is even more likely now). I've got no tolerance for shit like this myself. However, the edit almost makes it sound as though he wanted to be blocked, which might imply some sibling rivalry or something. That shouldn't be our problem, though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd have given him a week's vacation, enough for him to see what happened and claim that the rogue edit was made by a retard who happened to come across a computer from which he hadn't logged out, or that he has some psychiatric disorder in which (for example) one personality is embarrassed by and apologizes for the behavior of the other personality. If that claim were made, I'd read it very sceptically; if such a thing happened again, I'd ban him permanently. One thing's for sure: the author of those comments (whether a child, a retard, or a mock-retard) isn't worth anyone's time. -- Hoary 09:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... But If that's the case, I'd rather have the real owner of the account come back whenever and have to say "OMG I'M SORRY" to get unblocked, personally. Grandmasterka 09:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If there's a good unblock reasoning given, I would probably be okay with giving him one more shot. Along those lines (i.e. to inform him of {{unblock}}), I just sent a uw-block3; hopefully you don't mind. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I also endorse the decision to indefinitely block.--Jersey Devil 19:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

He has now left me this friendly message on my user talk using an anon IP User:82.2.84.255.Proabivouac 21:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

24 hour block of that IP for personal attacks.--Jersey Devil 06:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This user may now be editing under the new account User:BOV1993. There are many common style features (starting a page on a right-wing South African topic, spelling mistakes "Viljeon", "Bophuthatswana Defense Force", and others). No abusive edits yet. Zaian 07:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Using an appropriate sequence of vandalism warnings

This message here has been prompted by the actions of User:James116, and the single warning this user got from User:SpuriousQ. James116 indulged in multiple incidents of vandalism today, and, although by the time SpuriousQ gave him a warning message on his talk page, he had carried out 4 such incidents, only one, non-specific warning was issued. I took some time to look at James116 contributuons today, and so could see that a total of 6 incidents of vandalism had occurred, including two after the warning given by SpuriousQ. If each incident had been separately logged and warned, the threshold for logging James116 at WP:AIV would certainly have been passed, and appropriate action could have been considered by the admins there. As it is, I feel an opportunity of prevention and stopping has been lost (until perhaps now), and a appropriate sequence of warnings has been "thwarted a little" (as I wrote in a message on SpuriousQ's talk page). I have, however, noticed that this failure to log each act of vandalism is very common and, in my opinion (though I'm only an editor) it subverts, almost certainly unintentionally, the means that are in place to combat persistent or "binge" vandals.

I've gone through and given James116 separate warnings for today's vandalism attempts (with the times at which they happened), but I thought it useful to raise this issue here, rather than log a report to WP:AIV, because of the mix-up over reporting that I think took place. This has meant that the vandalism is now more then two hours old (arguably not recent enough for action now to be taken). What is the recommended course of action? I know that flexibility should be allowed, but the amount of flexibility shown here has been, I argue, sub-optimal. Am I correct? What should be done about User:James116? Finally, it has made me think that perhaps a "cheat sheet" could be produced which gives a more clear sequence of actions editors might follow if they detect vandalism. This would only consist of guidelines, but it may be useful, and I wonder what the reactions would be to this? Thank you.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Long story short, I noticed a vandalism from James116, checked his history and saw he had committed a few others since his most recent warning (he had two priors), so I gave him a final warning that he would be blocked if he vandalized again. There's no reason to issue separate retroactive warnings for each prior vandalism that went unnoticed; in fact it's just more confusing both to the user and anyone reviewing the talk page. I've already reported to AIV, since DDstretch informed me he vandalized twice after the final warning. -SpuriousQ (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks or the summary. I personally find it most confusing to not have any indication of which vandalism attempts the warnings refer. It also makes it difficult to see whether any report to

Perhaps the AIV guidelines can be better explained somewhere, if they are not already. The basic idea is that AIV is to stop immediate future vandalism from happening rather than punish for old vandalism; i.e., the user must show a strong likelihood that they will vandalize again even after being told not to and informed that they may be blocked. That's the purpose of "proper set of warnings" and "vandalized after a recent last warning" (though the latter is more for IPs than for vandal-only user accounts). Given the blatant vandalism of James116 before and after the final warning, reporting to AIV was appropriate. -SpuriousQ (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If there is a multiple, obvious, string of vandalism, I see no issue in going right to level 3, 4, or 4im if necessary. -- Avi 16:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Deb 14:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, sometimes a vandal clearly knows what they are doing, in which case I think it's appropriate to jump right to level 3, 4, or 4im. For example, a vandal who is marking their edits as minor and giving an edit summary of "spelling" and then replacing the page with some all-caps screed obviously knows what they are doing and that it is wrong. Natalie 22:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with people jumping levels of warnings - I have done this myself on many occasions when i have warned people of vandalism. In one case, an anon IP (probably a sockpuppet) introduced some vandalism which a non-anon user apparently reversed, but which, in fact, added new and much more disruptive vandalism which had obviously been pre-planned given its nature and the additional resources, uploaded by the anon user, that had been later used. I obviously and correctly immediately reported them - as I said, there has to be flexibility. However, I do have a problem if there is a whole set of vandalising edits, and one warning is issued with no clear indication that all edits are covered by the warning, or which edits are covered. In some cases, there is also no clear indication of the level of warning that has been issued (this has happened a few times in my experiece) This latter situation could be easily corrected by a parenthetical comment in the warning itself, such as "(level 4, immediate)", but does rely on the correct warning templates being used, which also does not always happen. A further issue is, of course, where no warning is ever issued, and I have seen this happen far too frequently recently.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I know the issue at hand isn't really the specific James116 case, but you'll notice I put the warning under the heading "More vandalism to multiple articles". This was meant to bring attention to the user's edits between the previous warning and mine, which were all blatant vandalism (or almost all as I didn't check every one). I don't believe it's efficient or that beneficial to detail any further than that, it's all in the edit history. If you want to see what level a warning is, check out the source code, it will say <!-- {{uw-vandalism4}} --> or similar. -SpuriousQ (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Continued abuse of admin privileges by Darwinek

A previous incident involving admin Darwinek was discussed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive182#Improper blocking by Darwinek. That involved his block of me, reversed by another admin.

Now User:Darwinek continues to abuse his admin powers in relation to a different article, Zoran Petrovic.

On 17 February 2006 15:57 UTC User:Darwinek moved Zoran Petrovic to Zoran Petrović with the edit summary "moved Zoran Petrovic to Zoran Petrović over redirect: Serbian name".

In the same minute, Darwinek protected the page "Protected Zoran Petrović: move protected unless dispute is solved "

If there is a dispute, however, User:Darwinek is one of the two disputants, and just as he did in abusing his blocking power to gain advantage in a content dispute, he is now using his page protection power to gain advantage in a content dispute.

Furthermore, is there really a dispute? There is no discussion of any dispute on the talk page; in fact, Talk:Zoran Petrović and Talk:Zoran Petrovic remain redlinks. There is no discussion of any dispute at User talk:Darwinek nor at User talk:Gene Nygaard, and there aren't any other participants in any dispute as far as I know.

Darwinek has also not requested a move under Misplaced Pages:Requested moves, so there is no dispute under discussion there.

Prior to this, on 17 February 2007 at 12:27 UTC, Darwinek had moved Zoran Petrovic to Zoran Petrović with the edit summary: "moved Zoran Petrovic to Zoran Petrović: Serbian name".

Three hours later, at 15:40 UTC, I (User:Gene Nygaard) reverted that move with the edit summary: "moved Zoran Petrović to Zoran Petrovic over redirect: revert undiscussed, unreferenced move by User:Darwinek contrary to all cited sources."

It remains a totally undiscussed, unreferenced move by Darwinek.

In fact the only substantive edits Darwinek has made to the article were the early addition of a stub category, and since the first renaming his only substantive edit was to change one Petrovic to Petrović, and at the same time delete the Category:1952 births and Category:Living people entries, in an edit marked minor with no explanation of why he was doing so.

It remains true that all references cited in the article use the "Zoran Petrovic" and that none use the "Zoran Petrović" spelling. It isn't even established by any citation to any Misplaced Pages:reliable source that "Zoran Petrović" is an acceptable variant spelling deserving of mention in the introduction, let alone that it is worthy of consideration alongside the verified "Zoran Petrovic" spelling in choosing the proper name under Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions.

As an admin, Darwinek is also presumably aware of the Misplaced Pages:No original research policy. When it has specifically been pointed out that there is no source for a claim, then it is his obligation to provide one if he wants to continue making that claim. Gene Nygaard 17:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected the page. Use the talk page of the article or dispute resolution to resolve the problem. — Nearly Headless Nick 17:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

After posting this, I see that Darwinek has also protected a series of other pages (Damir Matovinović and several others), but once again only after making similar moves on his part to gain unfair advantage from his admin powers. The only difference in most of those cases is that, unlike this one, the earlier unreferenced undiscussed moves were made by a different editor, in most cases User:SndrAndrss, who not only has a propensity for making unreferenced, undiscussed moves, but also completely fails to address the various attempts by several editors to discuss his various headstrong actions at User talk:SndrAndrss. Gene Nygaard 17:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, in the interest of fairness, the page protection should not only be removed as Nearly Headless Nick has done for

Is it you, Eugene, who is generally not liked by the community, and is it you who will be definitely blocked for life sooner or later. - Darwinek 17:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Your chauvinist vomits are clear as always, you obviously don't fight against "unreferenced moves" which didn't stress diacritics. I can easily move e.x. Ramon Brown to Roman Brown and you will be OK with that. - Darwinek 17:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Darwinek, please don't get provoked. This can be sorted out by dispute resolution. — Nearly Headless Nick 18:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You are hoist on your own petard on that one, Darwinek. You didn't mess with my reversion of the unreferenced move of Valery Medvedtsev which didn't involve diacritics. Quite clearly, it is you who are the disruptive fanatic. Gene Nygaard 18:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

OK Nick. I don't know how far you know this user but in a few words I can say that, he dreams about Misplaced Pages pure as a Lebensborn, Misplaced Pages without diacritics and "strange foreign characters" (citation) at all. This is NOT a content dispute, this is vandalism by his person, vandalism aimed to whitewash all diacritics. He actually don't care about my edits but he stalk them every day, cause he knows I am one of the strongest and firmest hard-liners trying to stop his destructive edits. - Darwinek 18:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have known this user to be disruptive on Cricket-related articles. However, making attacks on another user will make others assume bad faith with you. Start an RfArb or an RfC, if there hasn't been one, in the first place. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick 18:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Nick. I have been considering that long time ago. I will start RfArb soon with other users, probably. Best regards, - Darwinek 18:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (Nearly Headless Nick) has unprotected the Zoran Petrović article with the edit summary: (Unprotected Zoran Petrović: Please do not use admin tools on articles when you are involved in content dispute.)

But it remains a half-finished job. Darwinek was using his admin privileges to gain advantage in a content dispute. He was protecting his own changes in spelling, in deleting categories, and in moving the article. What he was protecting, to improperly gain advantage, remains there. Somebody still needs to level the playing field by restoring the article to its original name, before the undiscussed and unreferenced moves, and then if Darwinek wants to make a move, he can make his case for doing so. Gene Nygaard 04:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The protection was clearly inapropriate... However the argument over the move is a Content Dispute. This page is NOT for resolveing content disputes. If you disagree with the move, take it to WP:DR. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue here isn't a content dispute. It is about continuing to allow Darwinek to retain the advantage he sought by the improper abuse of his admin powers.

Further, the procedures in WP:DR are clearly not an appropriate forum in this case. Misplaced Pages has a well-established process for this purpose in Misplaced Pages:Requested moves, and that is where Darwinek ought to take it if he wants to make this disputed move. Gene Nygaard 14:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Gene, please request a move at WP:RM. This will probably form a consensus on what the appropriate title is. Conscious 15:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not the one wanting to move the article, without discussion, to a spelling different from that used in every source cited in the article.

I am also not the one who was caught engaging in misconduct. Gene Nygaard 00:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Further moving of pages around, while the dispute is pending, will only increase the dispute and rancor and confusion, and will not be done. Proceed from here. Newyorkbrad 15:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you hit the brad right on the head there, Newyorkbrad. Were I to be the one to move it, Darwinek would indeed step up the rancor.

But he will be quite satisfied if his misconduct achieves the desired result, sitting back with a smug grin, even if the actual misconduct itself is reverted. He will have gotten away with it.

Note that this is not a case where there has been an ongoing discussion. Note that Darwinek has never offered up any reason for making his move, he has not cited any sources which would justify his move, and he has not done any discussion whatsoever on the article's talk page. Or anywhere else for that matter. There is no reason whatsoever to leave the move he tried to protect by his improper abuse of powers standing.

It would be quite reasonable and proper, and quite likely to avoid increasing rancor and confusion, for some disinterested party to go there and say "I'm putting you back at square one, to the state it was in before the dispute started, now continue with appropriate discussion and/or requested moves". I can tell you for damn sure that my anger and rancor are going to increase significantly if something along those lines does not happen. There is something broken in the process if that does not happen.

Sometimes, of course, it is important to avoid even a perception of impropriety. It doesn't take much to convince many Wikipedians that the sysops are a bunch of back-room backslappers, reluctant to take one of their own to task for even glaring wrongdoing. That they might, for example, say one thing in public here or on the talk pages everyone can see, then go off-Misplaced Pages in a private conversation that might be the complete opposite. Gene Nygaard 00:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion, continuing copyvio

Top Gun (talk · contribs) was blocked for the second time for putting copyvio material into articles. The block is still active. Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Top Gun confirms that 87.116.171.227 (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Top Gun. This IP is making contributions despite the block and is presumably still identical with Top Gun, cf. . The IP is continuing the pattern of copying copyrighted material, e. g. in from . The modus operandi is such that the copyvio material is hard to find and to remove. I ask for administrator action to make it stop. This is a repost of yesterday’s complaint; if the request is unwarranted, I would appreciate somebody noting so. —xyzzy_n 19:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I was the blocking admin the second time around. This user seems to have a troubled history; given this socking I suggest extending the block to indef and making it a community ban. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I already gave this my best shot. Why this user is evading a ban in order to insert copyvios into our articles I will probably never understand, but that is clearly what is going on. Block anything that looks like this until this person decides to take a different approach. Jkelly 04:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I definitely support a block. Despite the fact that he has good intentions, he has stated that he is unable to do edit these articles without inserting copyvios (see edit summaries that are most likely deleted). I originally discovered his copyvios on new page patrol and brought the original complaint against him on AN/I after many, many copyvios and subsequent deletions and I can't see any way to deal with him. Even after some very tolerant and good faith intervention (by Jkelley), I really don't see any other solution. John Reaves (talk) 05:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that I have now blocked him indefinitely. However, he can contest the block; he should agree to stop with this disruptive behaviour. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Conflict between two users

There has been an ongoing conflict between the two users Messhermit and Bdean1963 on Peru-related articles. Their edit warring had caused the Tacna Region and the War of the Pacific article to be protected. They then went on to edit war in the main Peru article, when I saw this I warned both of them to stop. They said they would stop but instead the user Bdean1963 tried to sneek around this by making the same edits to the History of Peru article and Messhermit responded the same way by reverting. So I blocked them both for 24 hours on that occasion. Today I saw that they were again edit warring in the List of Presidents of Peru article. They had been doing so for maybe three days now. So I gave them both a 48 hour block. I would like the advice of some administrators on how to handle this situation because it seems that both users think they are in the right and are unwilling to stop their edit warring.--Jersey Devil 20:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been observing proceedings for a while from the sidelines. The pair of them should agree not to edit any Peru articles until these disputes have been resolved through mediation on talk pages etc. They have been raging for months and causing a lot of disruption. If they continue to edit any of the affected articles without going through the dispute processes, they should be blocked for increasing periods. Actually, wasn't Messhermit already banned from article mainspace by arbitration?-- Zeitzen 20:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an admin, but I was making a small effort to get agreement on the War of the Pacific spat. As to the background, Messhermit was banned from Alberto Fujimori and articles regarding the Ecuador-Peru dispute at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Messhermit; the ban expires in May. On the up-side, Messhermit and Bdean1963 have made some attempts to undertake dispute resolution. There's a case at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-08 War of the Pacific opened by Messhermit. Bdean1963 created Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/War of the Pacific, but that was rejected as Messhermit didn't sign up. As with many multi-article content disputes, it's very difficult for an outside observer with a fuzzy grasp of the topic(s) to understand what's actually disputed, and where, and why it should matter anyway. In general, Bdean1963 isn't terribly communicative, while Messhermit is rather the opposite. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin either, but I regularly edit Peru-related articles, and have had some run-ins with both of these guys. I've had very little actual user-to-user contact with Bdean1963 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I have, however, had a lot of contact with Messhermit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). For purposes of full disclosure, I will bluntly tell you that most of my experience with Messhermit has been extremely negative: he frequently calls me a communist, a terrorist sympathizer, a Shining Path member, etc. That being said, he has engaged me in civilized conversation on Talk:List of Presidents of Peru in the past few days. I still think he's wrong on the issue there, and is in violation of policy by refusing to provide sources for his own claims and deleting sources provided by me, but at least he's avoided calling me names, and I'm quite thankful for that. Frankly, I'm willing to deal with anyone who is at least somewhat polite.

I'd also like to point out that neither one of these users actually violated 3RR on List of Peruvian Presidents. In fact, Bdean1963 just arrived at the page shortly before JerseyDevil blocked him

For some background information, Messhermit was banned from editing the article Alberto Fujimori, a former Peruvian president who Messhermit thinks very highly of. Messhermit has never really respected the ban, however, and was blocked for five days for massive violation of the block proven by checkuser (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Messhermit). He claimed that he'll never edit that article again, but was actually blocked a second time for violating it.

I hope that this information is of at least some use, although it probably won't be. --Descendall 06:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I asked Descendall to participate here because he regularly contributes in the types of articles in which these two users are having their edit wars. I will say however that WP:3RR does not give user's the right to three reverts and I will say that the user has been told to stop edit warring with Messhermit in these types of articles and that is why he was blocked.--Jersey Devil 06:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

40 Anonymous IP Address Vandals

I am reporting the following 40 anonymous IP Address users which are listed here. Each of these anonymous IP address vandals have been involved in removing WikiProject templates from related pages, leaving a statement which links to this page.

I have had similar problems like this with other groups of anonymous IP address vandals in two phases which has been documented here and here.

I respectfully request for a speedy block for all of these IP Addresses to prevent further POV vandalism in the future. Thank you. Wiki Raja 06:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If anything, the range is 59.92.32.0/20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), but this is an issue since it is the IP range for the entire city of Chennai, a major city in India.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Does that mean that all 40 of the anonymous IP address users have been blocked? Regards. Wiki Raja 07:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• I temporarily blocked 59.92.0.0/16 over this for 8 hours, but as these all appear to be dynamic IP's there was no way I was blocking that entire country over some template placings. — xaosflux 13:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It is probably one guy traveling around with a laptop connection to wireless networks. InBC 13:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • But, back to back removals of templates on different sites every few minutes from different IP Addresses? Wiki Raja 19:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I do not think that it is one guy traveling around with a laptop connection. It would be impossible to do since each edit from each different IP Address was posted every minute here. Wiki Raja 21:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

194.90.125.208

I posted this before and it archived without response. So, repost then...

I was wondering if someone could look into 194.90.125.208's edits. I came accross this IP editor after this edit popped up on my watchlist, and I looked at the user's contribution list, and almost all of this users edits are to some sort of link section (extrenal links, sources, etc.)

These edits look suspicious--they all go to the same website, but I can't tell whether or not they are spam because they are all in Hebrew.

Here's 194.90.125.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for your convience, because even though I'm fairly sure there's another IP something that provides info that doesn't label the person as a vandal, I have no idea what it is. Thanks ~~Miss Mondegreen | Talk   04:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's definitely spamming (you don't need to be able to read Hebrew to see spamming). Blocking the IP doesn't appear to be an option right now, as it appears to belong to an Israeli ISP. I would suggest requesting that the page be blacklisted.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Israeli ISPs can't be banned why? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   10:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks shared.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

But blocking the IP wouldn't prevent those IPs from account creation, right? It seems far more difficult to take up a policy of blacklisting instead of banning when the spam isn't widespread. In this case it's one person who's made less than 50 edits, spamming for two different websites. Blacklisting requires following this persons contributions, whereas blocking is much simpler and doesn't actually keep people who have this shared address from becoming legitimate editors. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   22:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC/Personal attacks

I've been under constant personal attacks recently from User:Worldtraveller (, , ), who is currently editing only to launch such attacks and to work on his essay of much recent note about Misplaced Pages's failures. Additionally, he's opened up an RfC against me, which has gone two days of spamming without certification, and I would like to see closed. Though these are clearly personal attacks, I of course would not like to simply deal with this behavior myself, and would appreciate other admins looking into this (I have thus far been unable to receive any input on the situation).

On another note, my now closed RfC is still being edited, and I've been unable to receive any comments on what to do there, either. --InShaneee 04:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

(I confine myself to the procedural questions.) The more recent RfC has remained uncertified for well more than forty-eight hours and so can be deleted straightaway by any uninvolved party (the endorsement of the statement of the dispute by an uninvolved party ≠ a certification of that which underlies the dispute inasmuch, most notably, as the former does not reflect the endorsing user's having tried to resolve the dispute). On the latter issue, an RfC, to my understanding, is generally not formally closed, such that there is not after some period erected a bar to further participation (beyond, of course, the abiding WP:CIVIL, etc.); one can safely divorce him/herself of an "old" RfC, though, I imagine, when its constructive potential appears exhausted (viz., when a consensus of editors has been borne out and contributions tend only to represent unsubstantial endorsements or restatements of expressed views). Joe 05:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• OK, we have an issue here in that several individuals express frustration with InShaneee. Much of this is sour grapes. Can any uninvolved party give some insight as to whether InShanee might need a bit of support, or if a proper RfC (as in: not a list of grudges) would be worth doing? My feeling is that InShaneee is just an admin who does hard cases sometimes, with predictable results, but I could be wrong. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There actually were some good comments from uninvolved users in the last RfC, and there was some good progress made on many sides of the issue, I think. --InShaneee 01:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Those are personal attacks. I left a civility warning for this user just a couple days ago, I have left another. InBC 01:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. They're not personal attacks. "If you refuse to justify your actions, you're a terrible administrator" isn't even the same as calling Inshaneee a terrible administrator — see the "if" in there? I would object strongly to Worldtraveller being blocked or in any way intimidated over such posts. I think it's important for the healthy functioning of this site that criticism of admin actions, even strong criticism, is allowed, nay, encouraged. There is nothing personal about criticizing somebody's admin actions. If I have anything to do with it, nobody'll ever get blocked for calling me a terrible administrator, with or without the "if". Bishonen | talk 02:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

If you refuse to justify your actions, <personal attack>. Ummm, ya that is a personal attack, failing to justify yourself does not allow for personal attacks. Also, you can criticize without name calling, the personal attack in question was not needed to air his concerns. InBC 03:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I did not block this user, or even mention a block. It was just a polite request to be civil. InBC 03:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A request warning which mentioned a previous request warning. Yes. I'm afraid I found your tone threatening. Food for thought? Bishonen | talk 03:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

My thought was simply that there is a place, a time, and a tone. This happened more than a month ago, and I pretty much always consider "surprised you can string together a few sentences" to be an insult. Either way, I've now made another attempt to resolve this conflict, so hopefully this will end here. --InShaneee 05:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

70.113.94.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) * Vandalism continuous attack on the article.

• Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), India Rising (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Soman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 70.113.94.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) continuesly attack the page National Development Front see its history.. I try to correct the article with other user's point of views and help user:sundaram7 to bring more valuable data. But they just change the page to old versions without putting any reason in the talk page or in the discussion page. This is continuing for couple of months. Ganeshco 07:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Tooj

Tooj1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Tooj2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Tooj3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), probably more. All the same user, vandalise only once on each account so I can't report any individual one. Someone deal with it; I have to go now. Thanks – Qxz 07:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, here we go. Tooj117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be blocked already, and is the user behind this. Hopefully that doesn't meant there are 116 more of them – Qxz 07:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I see it has been done. Thanks to whoever did that – Qxz 07:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't that hard—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

My request here, and the links I provide, may be enlightening. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 09:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Report on Sarvagnya's behavior and violations on Misplaced Pages

I am reporting user Sarvagnya in regards to his behavior and violations on Wikipeida. To save space on this page, I have created a separate page in regards to this case here. I humbly request for this matter to be looked into and for a consideration for Sarvagnya to be blocked. Thank you. Wiki Raja 09:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Report on Admin Blnguyen

I am reporting administrator Blnguyen for abuse of his authority and favoritism. I understand that he takes an interest in the Kannadiga culture of Southern India which I admire. However, it does not justify him on taking sides and showing favoritism towards a particular group or individual here on Misplaced Pages. Further information on this situation can be found here. I humbly request for someone to look into this issue and to deal with this accordingly. Thank you. Wiki Raja 10:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Admins don't really have any "authority". They have a set of admin tools. If he has misused those tools then provide evidence because all I see is him not doing what you want, which is not a crime. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a clear incident report. El_C 10:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can take sides (as long as you're not applying it to articles:)). Go see WP:RFA. Bias is natural. Jorcoga 11:07, Sunday, 18 February '07

I understand and am not here to get people in trouble for no reason. Neither do I like doing this. It is understandable that admins have a lot of responsibilities. However, would be of good if he could be a little more neutral. Also, please look into the Sarvagnya case. He is getting away with a lot of things, in broad daylight. Wiki Raja 12:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Per his talkpage, Blnguyen is on a wikibreak anyway. Newyorkbrad 15:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• This one goes in the "too hard" basket. But Blnguyen is "good people" so I'm inclined to be sceptical. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• • I respect your opinion. Wiki Raja 00:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

March Days

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Hi, I would like to report that the site to which I and few other users made major contributions with referenced material from NPOV sources, has been vandalized by user User:Aivazovsky and blocked for editing at version which has only one paragraph left. Can you please, investigate the issue? Please, check the full version,

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=March_Days&oldid=108860969

and the version left by Aivazovsky without any consulting on discussion page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/March_Days

I would like to say that few users including myself have put a lot of time to research and edit this site with NPOV references, so it's unfair that the site has been practically hacked in such manner. User:Aivazovsky has done the same thing at Qazakh page, where he simply is not able to come to consensus at Talk:Qazakh and did not provide a single reference to support his point. Please, advise what to do as the edit at March Days looks nothing other than vandalization of that site. Thanks. Atabek 11:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to support Atabek on this. I have to mention that this is not the only example of Armenian users completely undoing referenced edits by Azerbaijani users. They did the same on Paytakaran, Nakhichevan, Caucasian Albania, History of Nagorno-Karabakh and other articles. Check the history of those articles and you'll see that it is the same pattern of completely undoing all the edits without prior discussion on talk. I think that this cannot go on like this, and something needs to be done to stop it. Grandmaster 11:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I discussed my reason for doing this on the edit history page. I believe that it was unfair that this article (a sensitive topic between Armenians and Azeris) was expanded without the consent of Armenian editors. I don't mind expanding the article, but I believe that we need to put objectivity first. I don't mind working with Azeri users on this.

It also should be noted that when Atabek talks of users who "put a lot of time to research" into the article, he does not note that User:Tengri, a blocked sockpuppet of Atabek, was the biggest contributor to the article.

And regarding this as "not the only example of Armenian users completely undoing referenced edits by Azerbaijani users," I would like to draw User:AdilBaguirov, an Azeri user, to the attention of the administrators here on Misplaced Pages. Ever since his arrival, Adil has attempted to worsen relations between Armenian and Azeri editors by creating non-issues on articles of compromise and delicate balance. He has started numerous edit wars, forced many of these articles to be protected, and his stance on issues when talking to him is unchanging and unconstructive. -- Aivazovsky 12:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Instead of removing other peoples edits, you should be improving them and follow dispute resolution procedures. What you did there and on Nakhichevan is clearly wrong. You do not own the articles and everyone has a right to edit them. Grandmaster 12:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

On Nakhichevan, I just compromised with you on a hot topic (the railway blockade) that led to an edit war between Armenian and Azeri users. -- Aivazovsky 12:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Which started after my edit was removed from the article. Still I consider your response on talk of Nakhichevan a step in the right direction. I would also like to draw admins attention to User:ROOB323, who's edit warring on multiple pages. Just today he made 3 rvs on History of Nagorno-Karabakh article, without making any use of the talk page. Grandmaster 12:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Roob actually made 2 reverts that were justified anyway, based on your edits there made to stir up trouble unless they were good edits which all your edits get reverted by users than there obviously NOT. You should discuss your edits and tell us why you want to do this the article is written fine yet you rewrite in a fashion to your views, the sentences were made for Armenian and Azeri view yet you change it to your personal view, Nareklm 21:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, all of you seem to appear on this board far too often. So ...

Stop edit warring right now. Making two reverts is not justified unless reverting vandalism. Furthermore, this is not the Misplaced Pages complaints department. Go pursue dispute resolution before you all end up blocked. Yuser31415 21:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Umm thanks for the notice but i know, he explained his revert while Grandmaster, was still edit warring and do not close a discussion if you are going to reply like that. Nareklm 00:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't dispute resolution. Yuser31415 00:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Any admins around?

Then head over to the 3RR board which has been backlogged for over a day. My request for semi-protection has also been waiting for over 12 hours. Catchpole 11:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I don't have the stamina right now for 3RRing (or for talking to people who object to having been blocked for 3RR, to be more precise). El_C 11:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This you get for not adminning Bishzilla, she go through 3RR backlog like knife through butter. Bishzilla | grrrr! 12:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

And what a lovely un-orange talk page she has! Unlike a certain someone... Gah! El_C 12:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

A zilla on 3RR patrol, I tremble with anticipation at the body count.--Doc 15:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Help

I don't wish to get blocked for 3RR on Waldemar Matuska, but other Wikipedians are not carrying the same fight as me. The talk page clearly states that the IP edits are unfounded, but I don't want to be found reverting the page a fourth time. Could someone please advise? Is this "simple vandalism", and thus exempt? Bobo. 12:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Exempt. El_C 12:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

And semi-protected for a week. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for semi-protecting the article, JzG. Bobo. 03:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Mucoid plaque

This article survived an AfD, unfortunately, because people felt it was necessary to expose this health fraud on Misplaced Pages. Nonetheless one editor, Heelop, keeps removing any reference this fabricated concept is not supported by the medical community. Despite the fact he can't provide any article from a medical journal he removes the disclaimer from the article that it is not described in medical literature.

His actions are not only in violation of policy, but since his only contribution to Misplaced Pages consists of removing sceptical passages from this article I am inclined to think he has a more than superficial interest in maintaining the article as advertisment. Could some uninvolved admin look into this and see if or what action is possible. (RfC? Block?). Nomen Nescio 17:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have blocked Heelop for disruption. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Policy enforcement & new user

On RC patrol I noticed the creation of the entry Chandralekha by Kalaripayatt (talk · contribs). (Most of) the entry is cut & pasted from here and the Image:Chandralekha.gif looks to be straight off google image search. I prodded the article, but the creator immediately removed the template. As I was explaining the process on Kalaripayatt's talk page I noticed that there were several other warnings for similar things. I'd appreciate it if someone with more astute detective skills could look into this, and perhaps take it from here, because I think the letter of the law is to blank the page(s) and slap {{copyvio}} tags, but that seems to undermine AGF and BITE a bit. - WeniWidiWiki 18:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently someone has unilaterally deleted Chandralekha already, but I'd appreciate it if they would leave an explanation on the creator's talk page about the policies involved. - WeniWidiWiki 19:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Technically you should tag the page with {{db-copyvio}}. Cheers, Yuser31415 20:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I know - but what about the image and all the other stuff this person has cut & pasted into articles? I just want to make sure they get due process and know why their additions are being contested and removed, and to make sure that all of their other copyvios get cleaned up as well. - WeniWidiWiki 20:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I expect a gentle note reminding the user of Misplaced Pages:Copyrights would help. Yuser31415 20:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:HAR---WP:CIV---User:Gene_Poole---User:Gardener_of_Geda

,---

Dr. Who 18:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything specifically wrong with those comments? Yuser31415 20:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Attacking my person and not my editions is not something that I would expect from someone with higher education.-WP:COI---Dr. Who 20:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, we have a policy against using famous people's names - are you the real Doctor Who? Please fax a copy of the Tardis to Wikimedia Foundation to arrive not later than last Thursday. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:HAR---WP:CIV

User:Gene_Poole --Doktor Who 01:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)]

Abuse of Power Complaint: admin Teke

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

(see: Criticisms of Misplaced Pages#abuses of power)

Here is my letter of appeal (of which i recieved no response):

            S'io credesse che mia risposta fosse

That is a nice foldable table. —Centrx→talk • 21:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Yuser31415 21:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

So I guess we're done with that. There's something at the top of this page that states that "this is not the Misplaced Pages complaints department" and "Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to read long diatribes" both of which this letter fails. I will inform WikiTony that he needs to make a five sentence explanation of the abuse,and not cite Something Awful or other unreleated sites.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:194.72.81.129

This blocked user is continually blanking (currently 7 times) their talk page and being abusive in their edit summaries . Would protection be appropriate? Not sure if this is the right place; please point me in the right direction if not. Thanks, mattbr 18:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

His talk page has now been protected. Sandstein 19:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Sandstein and also Bishonen. mattbr 19:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh. I was under the impression that, while not exactly popular, users were allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages and this wasn't a basis for page protection. Or did I get that wrong? Bitnine 23:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Not all users. Whenever the matter is brought up at this board, consensus seems to be that established users can remove whatever they want from their talk pages, while anonymous vandals don't get to remove warnings. Especially not an anonymous vandal blocked for six months (!) and with such a warning and block message collection as this on their page. I think it's appropriate to use semiprotection here. If the user has any interest in having an editable page, they can either register an account and wait four days, or stop with the massive vandalism, whichever suits. Bishonen | talk 01:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

sock puppetry

User:Paul Conners has apparently been using IP 70.188.138.214 to pov push while blocked. Similarities between the IPs contribs and Paul Conners contribs make check user unnecessary in this case, I think. Natalie 21:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, they're the same :P. Duck test. *Quack!* Yuser31415 22:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Incivility

User 151.42.180.210 has insulted other users. His insults are very vulgar. He has written in his edit summary: "Carnildo, suck my cock, drink my cum" and "Fuck you" . Furthermore he has vandalized dozens of articles with the edit summary: "Don't I have the right to remove what I added?" . I propose that this user is indefinitely blocked. Agha Nader 22:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

In the future, blatant personal attacks can be taken to WP:AIV. —Dgies 22:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked for 48 hours. As a matter of policy, we do not indefinitely block IP addresses. If this particular user retains this IP address and returns after the block, feel free to relist on WP:AIV or poke me on my talk page for a longer block. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Booshakla

Booshakla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked twice before for incivility & personal attacks on top of a checkered history. See this for the most recent block. The latest personal attack, "your arguments are laughable and crap", was here.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No... I don't think so. That's not nice, but not quite a PA either (your arguments are not you). And if the latest was four days ago, it's in any case a bit late to post a complaint about it. Also you've misread the block log. Booshakla has been blocked once for incivility and personal attacks, not twice. Deiz who blocked him/her had second thoughts and reduced the original 48-hour block to 24 hours, that's what you saw as two blocks. Moreover, Booshakla's very first block, by Yamla, was also apparently made in error, and soon undone. This means that what may look at first glance like a hefty block log actually consists of one block. Not much of a "checkered history". So, altogether, no. On another note, could you please avoid using the deprecated {{vandal}} template for a case like this? {{userlinks|Booshakla}} will give the same output, and is preferable. Bishonen | talk 02:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

User:Big Boss 0

This user has declared war on the banned user User:Ockenbock for whatever reason, and has carried the war over to uncyclopedia where he has been indefinitely blocked. He doesn't seem to understand that this may have an effect on the Misplaced Pages community. He is convinced that he can "defeat" Ockenbock by vandalizing his uncylopedia page. Both User:Metros232 and I have tried explaining to him that not only will this not work, but it may have serious repercussions on the Misplaced Pages community connected to him. He is still set on "taking him down on his own turf." Could we get some help here? 声援 -- The Hybrid 23:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

blocked editor User:Serafin

Serafin has been evading his block, and has been continuing his disruptive editting. He was blocked on 19 January for 1 month, but since then has made ~100 edits see here, most of which have been personal attacks and none of which have been useful contributions. if you will read Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Serafin you will see how problematic he has been. He has been banned from both Polish and German wikipedias (sometimes known as Aserafin, Bserafin, Cserafin), further indication that his actions are not likely to contribute anything to the English wikipedia. if that wasn't enough of a smoking gun, I would like to direct you to a talk that took place between him and another polish-speaking editor, User_talk:Philip_Gronowski. Much of the discussion is in Polish, but Philip was kind enough to translate it for me here. the most incriminating part is where he states You can rest assured that I will be doing everything to close as many articles as I can. This was commented soon after the all the articles he had been editting were protected, and he had been blocked for a month. Can someone please block all his sockpuppets to allow the normal editors with good intentions to continue on wikipedia. and if he uses another anon IP, perhaps semi-protect the pages he has been seen to frequent.

--Jadger 00:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Jacob Peters IP sock

I have blocked 69.110.129.127 (talk · contribs) for one week because it appears to me to be an obvious sock of banned User:Jacob Peters. In addition to the modus operandi matching Jacob Peters exactly (pro-communist POV, dismissing opposing sources as unreliable), the IP is similar to those he has used in the past (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jacob Peters). I post this here so others can review my actions and because I am told Jacob Peters often uses open proxies. Someone who understands this better may want tot check and see if this is one. Heimstern Läufer 01:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

3 Blocks, one of them one week long, and he still doesnt get it....

I'm talking about User:LSLM. His blocks: , , . The reasons for all of them included personal attacks.

Yet, he continues. His personal attacks since his last block:

• "...FOR GOD'S SAKE, THIS IS A MESSAGE FOR ADMINISTRATORS. LOOK AT BOTH MEMBER'S CONTRIBUTIONS. THEY ARE USING WIKI AS A POLITICAL PLATFORM OF THE MOST EXTREME RACIST AND NAZI PROPAGANDA...."

• This is the 3rd or 4th section he has made to "warn" people about my edits, usually with thinly veiled insults:

• Actually just reading Talk:White_people might be easier.

• His other personal attack section Talk:White_people/Archive_8#Watch_out_for_some_users_like_Lukas

• He seems to call anyone whom he doesnt agree with "pest of Nazis that are infesting Wiki" whom "Never in" his "entire life" has he "sat at the same table with disgusting Nazis". See: Talk:Prehistoric_settlement_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland#Another_User

• More: ,

• What's more funny is that he was the one making racial attacks, saying: ""People have also called the white race Stupid Whitey or Honky. Also the word Cracker" ,

• Lots of attacks on Americans, just see white page talk and archives, here's an example: "...I have said more than once that some (only some I want to leave this clear) Americans, Australians, etc.. think themselves whiter and more European than the European themselves. It may be just because they live in countries that have an intensive history of bigotry and they cannot swallow easily that they are increasingly becoming non-White nations (in my opinion much more interesting for that, but they obviously see it differently). Just travel to any US city. The country is no more "white" than some South American countries, and I could bet my right hand that Uruguay and Argentina are right now "whiter" than the US by all means. It does not matter what their statistics say or how their media want to present them on TV or in the movies. Anyone who knows the country well knows it. Their position is probably one way to steam off their growing inferiority complex(because of their view on white and non-white people). It must piss them off that some South American or even Muslim countries like Turkey are by all means whiter than their countries and nations. It is sad. They may deserve some understanding. A shoulder to cry on. So they come here with their risible arguments: But these are considered white and those not by my uncle! It sounds like a desperate cry to claim their "whiteness" or their "Europeanness" or God knows what....."

• Besides personal attacks, he is highly disruptive, his bans range from vandalism to violation of 3RR rule and he recently caused the White people article to be fully protected again: Lukas19 01:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• He claims to be leaving Wiki, but many users leave Wiki and then return. User:Wobble had also left Misplaced Pages after extensive personal attacks and was back before a week. Please do not let some editors to distrupt Misplaced Pages and other editors without any consequence. Lukas19 01:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A Semi-protected article that "isn't"

Just a quick observation. The Great Depression article has a semi-protect padlock on it. But, somehow, an anon IP just vandalized it twice. The semi-protect is either not functioning or expired...obviously. Especialy since a very noble and trustworthy anon IP (me) just picked it off the recent changes list and had to revert it. Just thought you'd like to know. Have a nice day! 156.34.216.15 01:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The protection had expired. I removed the {{sprotected2}} padlock template. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Problem

A user (Bbrcadu) just blanked a page. I warned him, but does anything else need done? This is my first time warning about this type of vandalism. Zbl 01:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No, treat it like any other vandalism. There is a specific series of warnings for deleting content if you wish to use them:
{{uw-delete1}}, {{uw-delete2}}, {{uw-delete3}}
In fact I see you didn't use a warning template at all, you might want to check out WP:UTM for specific ('official') warnings you can use on vandals' talkpages. WjBscribe 01:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Go along with what WjBscribe said, for serious content removal cases like blanking articles, you can use {{uw-delete4im}} instead. If he ignores final warning, report to WP:AIV. That's how to do it. PeaceNT 02:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Big Boss 2

Could someone indefblock this account? It says it's a sock of User:Big Boss 0, but Big Boss 0 stated it wasn't his Thanks! — Moe 02:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

He's already under a 48hr block. Let us give him the benefit of the doubt. Yuser31415 04:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey O. Gustafson?

Hello. I opened an ANI inquery into the actions of Admin Jeffrey O. Gustafson, with a lot of details provided. It has since been removed and I have not been informed of the result. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Captain Barrett 02:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Read the top of this page very carefully, and you will soon know why there were no "results". - WeniWidiWiki 02:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Urgent notice

Please delete JzG's recent post on the User Talk page of Chicagostyledog, as well as the record of it in the edit history. It contains a disclosure of personal information that violates the Misplaced Pages privacy policy. Dino 03:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't even play the blame game , JzG did no such thing. — Moe 03:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the person who originally posted that information was Prodego on January 15. This just compounds the administrative misconduct. Dino 03:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I see is JzG identifying another sockpuppet.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Chicagostyledog is probably a sockpuppet of Joehazelton. You may ask Gamaliel; he will no doubt confirm my suspicion that it was Joehazelton. Delete the post. Dino 03:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It contains no personal information whatsoever. Personal information is stuff like phone numbers, addresses, names, social security numbers, and the like, not what you are alluding to. No need to delete edit(s). --physicq (c) 03:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I revealed this connection first, based on the "from" header of emails from Bryan (which had his last name). I did so to add evidence for Dean being a sock, since I had just blocked an employee of the WMF under edit pattern evidence. :). When Bryan complained I removed it, then contacted Fred Bauder, who told me that it did not need to be oversighted, so it assumedly OK to post it. I would like some external opinions though. Prodego 03:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal information is stuff like phone numbers, addresses, NAMES, social security numbers, and the like ...

With that name, anyone can obtain an address and a telephone number. The subject and his wife have already received threatening phone calls as a result of Prodego's first disclosure. Do not compound his administrative misconduct. Dino 03:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

JUST REMOVE THE NAME. Dino 03:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

YOU DON"T NEED TO SHOUT. It doesn't take an rocket scientist to figure out the last name given it's in your username. If you didn't want your last name on Misplaced Pages, you probably shouldn't have used it in your username. — Moe 03:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Dino, if you have problems with personal information, please visit requests for oversight. Yuser31415 04:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A new Roskam based IP sock just hit JzG's page HERE IP 128.241.108.232 - FAAFA 03:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of protocol, we should refer on-wiki to "BrianFromPalatine" rather than Brian H_____, although I agree that under the circumstances nothing has really been disclosed. Newyorkbrad 03:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Arigato1 (talk · contribs) won't stop POV pushing and blanking legitimate text

Not sure what this person's problem is. He keeps blanking legitimate and accurate information from an image caption (the text is not POV at all, it just mentions that China is shown to the North of North Korea on a map). He was about to break 3RR, so I VERY politely warned him on his talk page. His response was to blank the warning with the edit summary (fo). I'm sure you can guess that that stands for . This person is also causing a great deal of disruption on Denmark, as you can see from comments on his talk page, for pushing a lot of original research . He's also wikistalking me, as evidenced by THIS bogus revert to some copyediting I did on a Chicago Article of the Week (which is a project I'm a member of) . His edit summary there was "rv unsourced edit". This was obviously nothing but spiteful revenge. Can someone please deal with this person and his gross incivility before he really gets out of hand? TheQuandry 03:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:67.90.43.121 keeps reverting to POV language, no matter how many times it is taken out

67.90.43.121 refuses to stop adding POV language ("shockingly beautiful", "stunned by her delicate beauty", etc.) to the Susan Eldridge page. I have taken out their edits several times, and told them not to use POV language in my edit summaries, as well as on the discussion page, but they will not stop. --DearPrudence 03:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• I added a request to WP:RPP; that's where things like this should go. I also noted that the anonymous user's talk pages were empty. JuJube 03:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Who does that guy think he is, a poet? What you need for this problem is a tablesaw, a toothpick, and whole lot of dedication. I hope you're a fan of "carpentrial topogrophy."I Like You, Yes I Do 03:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Carpent-" what!?CharlieWantsU 04:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked him for 3RR. Sasquatch t|c 07:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Stopping User:JeromeJeromeJustinn

I know this guy personally and he has behavioral issues. He also happens to be my 13 year old son and I will surely put a stop to this unacceptable behavior.DadddyO 04:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no user of the name JeromeJeromeJustinn exists. Perhaps you have made a typo? Yuser31415 04:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Block review on Big Boss 0

I've blocked Big Boss 0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours for what I believe to be continuous disruption. It began with a lot of fair use images being used in user space (see his upload log). There became more issues like using Misplaced Pages as a free webhost. And now recently it's been a terrible obsession with Ockenbock (talk · contribs) who's been attacking me. Big Boss 0 is convinced he can bring the sockpuppets down. This was slightly annoying on Misplaced Pages, but now he's spread his war to Uncyclopedia (see the contributions here, here, and here). Big Boss 0 doesn't realize that doing that only caused Ockenbock to come at me (and Big Boss 0) with more attacks. There also appear to be a bunch of issues today regarding the appropriateness of his user page and user subpages. All this combined into a 48 hour cooling off block.

What does everyone feel of the appropriateness of this block? Too long? Just right? Not enough? Not needed? Feeedback would be appreciated, Metros232 04:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I endorse your block, but don't you feel this message would be more appropriate on AN? Yuser31415 04:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The infobox...disrupter

Not sure if this has been posted before, but there is a persistant editor who has been making questionable edits to infoboxes under various IP addresses:

• 74.12.155.186 (talk · contribs)
• 70.53.94.247 (talk · contribs)
• 70.53.94.131 (talk · contribs)
• 70.53.95.145 (talk · contribs)

There might be more out there, but these are the one's I have encountered through Peter Jennings. It's definitely disruptive (although there are good contributions here and there), and the editor has certainly been warned before on his older IP addresses, but has shown no sign of heeding the advice of others. Is there anything that can be done about this? Gzkn 02:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Restarted this old thread since no one responded. The IP is still at it (this time under 74.12.155.51 (talk · contribs) (some diffs: )). The pattern is always the same. The IP persistently:

• replaces Actors infoboxes with Biography infoboxes
• has something against the {{birth date and age}} and {{death date and age}} templates, as s/he constantly replaces them with simple dates.
• deletes the "image_caption" parameter to infoboxes if they exist
• deletes the country name in birth place/death place parameters Gzkn 04:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfacts in various pages

Facts not in line with reality, misspellings, and human error have been littering the Wikiscape lately. "Anyone can edit" has it's drawbacks. Any ideas? For my .02 I say hire a factchecker.Pooddy 04:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Unfacts"? --bainer (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Newspeak. Anyway, this looks like an untopic for ANI. Pooddy, please go to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous) instead. —xyzzy_n 04:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fact checking is done by everyone who visits wikipedia. Statistics has it that most people are good by nature, and so society in general will tend to correct more problems on wikipedia than that they cause.

Do your part! If you see an unfact, please correct it! --Kim Bruning 05:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Nkras, the sequel?

An anon user has been targeting several pages associated with the LGBT project, on the basis that "WP:LGBT is an agency for pushing a political POV." (see example diff). The anon has used several IP addresses, all from the same city and ISP:

• 71.34.20.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.34.19.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 63.228.54.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

It is suspected that this anon user is User:Nkras, who is editing anonymously to avoid an indef block. Could we get a checkuser on Nkras and compare it with the anons? If this is Nkras, is there a next step that a regular editor such as myself can take, or does this need to be taken care of by admins? Justin Eiler 05:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There are more than just these IPs. I will round up a full list of them and submit them to checkuser, hopefully within the hour. Also, if we have not already done so, I propose a community ban on the individual behind the Nkras account, as he has made repeated threats of meatpuppetry on Talk:Marriage and seems to view his indef block as simply an opportunity to take up new styles of trolling. — coelacan talk — 06:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

And has now taken up the cudgel aginst WP:GS because he claims that they are trying to "sanitize" Misplaced Pages. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV is backlogged

... that is all. —Dgies 05:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Still backlogged. We have some nasty personal-attack vandals still running loose. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleared now, lots of not-warned/not vandalism reports. However one of those did lead me to an abusive sock, so I guess thats all good. Viridae 08:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Brunei-Darussalam article vandalized

Here's the part that seems to have been vandalized.

"Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei, whose [[List of Sultans of Brunei|titl'Bold text'Bold textass ass ass ass ass ass ass assIn September 2004"

Sabzavot 05:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry it's not 'Brunei-Darussalam', it's 'Brunei' (name of article that seems to have been vandalized)

Sorry for confusion

Sabzavot 05:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it: thanks for pointing it out! By the way you can get quick action on this kind of thing by reporting it at the administrator intervention board. Antandrus (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocking revert of move

User:Huaiwei made a null edit to block revert to his undiscussed move of Macao Light Transit System . While there is no official policy or guideline, he insists the spelling of Macau/o must be standardised across entire Misplaced Pages. Is blocking revert of move ever allowed on Misplaced Pages? (Cf. an an earlier AN/I discussion in which the same wikipedians were involved.) — Instantnood 07:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As per User_talk:SchmuckyTheCat#Macau.2Fo, it has been long established by community concensus that the spelling of Macau should be "u", and for consistency sake, should be standardised across wikipedia. Is it not something of my own design, as Instantnood allerges (all subcategories in Category:Macau has similarly been standardised and renamed accordingly through community concensus many months back). Instantnood has consistently attempted to ignore concensus by reverting the Macau article and made similar changes elsewhere. His blatant disregard for community concensus is clearly a cause for concern as well.--Huaiwei 07:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate why and in what way did those discussions constitute a community consensus? (If I read correctly the first and second links, which are in fact pointing at the same thing, affected only the title of the Macau article.) In what way are the titles of categories comparable to titles and contents of articles in the main namespace? And why should official names of institutions like the Monetary Authority of Macao be affected? — Instantnood 08:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Community Ban of Miss Mondegreen

This user is engaging in trolling and personal attacks on this page. They are also acting delusional. We can not afford to waste our time, dealing with ranting. I am proposing a Six Month Community Ban of this user. Geo. Talk to me 07:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Bans go to WP:CN for now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot